From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262116AbTE2KXq (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:23:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262123AbTE2KXq (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:23:46 -0400 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([80.146.160.66]:63907 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262116AbTE2KXe (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:23:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3ED5E29F.3010900@colorfullife.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:36:15 +0200 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arvind Kandhare CC: linux-kernel , "indou.takao" , rml , Dave Jones , roystgnr@owlnet.rice.edu, garagan@borg.cs.dal.ca Subject: Re: Changing SEMVMX to a tunable parameter References: <3ED4C6B6.7050806@wipro.com> <3ED4E0BB.2080603@colorfullife.com> <3ED5DE49.5CA79049@wipro.com> In-Reply-To: <3ED5DE49.5CA79049@wipro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arvind Kandhare wrote: >1. Most of the IPC parameters (e.g. msgmni, msgmax, >msgmnb , shmmni, shmmax) are tunables. > >(Please refer : >http://web.gnu.walfield.org/mail-archive/linux-kernel-digest/1999-November/0020.html) > >Was there any specific reason why semvmx was not made a tunable with the >above set?? > > Because I didn't see the need for making it tunable. >2. By having semvmx as tunable, administrator gets more flexibility >in controlling the resource usage on the system: > a. By increasing this, it is possible to allow more > processes to use the system resources controlled by a > semaphore concurrently. > > Changing semvmx has no effect on the resource usage: An integer occupies 4 bytes, a short 2 bytes, independant of it's value. >Because of problems with dynamic tuning (ref first mail on the subject), >static tuning (boot time) is proposed. > >Please let us know your comments. > > Review everything for signed/unsigned problems, then post your findings and a patch that increases the limit to 64k. The whole patch will be shorter than the "confidential" disclaimer at the end of your mails. -- Manfred